Negligence Project Manager In Construction

Industry English Literature Essay

Published: 23, March 2015

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Negligence of project manager in construction industry
Construction industry is one of the contributors to economic development of the country. It is
consists of many parties involved having different background and expertise in projects. Project
manager as a leader of the project plays important role in managing project. However, as a
human being, people could not run away from make a mistake or negligence in performing a task
or responsible. Negligence of project manager would be discussed in giving the best performance
of project manager by learning the past mistake.

2.2 Definition of negligence

Negligence done by project manager is where project manager does not carry out duty of care to
other parties and as a result, the other parties suffer losses, damages and others because of that
negligence. Negligence also can be determined as misconduct (or malpractice) of professionals
fail in carrying out their tasks efficiently.

Professional

Essay Writers
Get your grade or your money back
using our Essay Writing Service!

As referred to MC Nair Judges in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, negligence

in law means a failure to do some act which a reasonable man in the circumstances would do, or
the doing of some act which a reasonable man in the circumstances would not do; and if that
failure or the doing of that act results in injury, then there is a cause of action.
Willick (1986) stated that "Malpractice" is an application of negligence law by which liability is
usually imposed, not when professionals fail to achieve certain results, but when they fail to
exercise "due diligence" and "reasonable care" in their practices.
Hingun M. and Wan Azlan Ahmad (1998) stated that the word negligence can be used in three
principal senses which are:
1. First, it could refer to a person's mental element, his negligence as to the possible effects of his
conduct
2. Secondly, it may refer to the quality of a person's conduct that he is negligent in doing
something such as crossing the road or driving his car, or in failing to do something such as to
accompany his small child in a place that may turn out to have objects that could cause injury to
that child. In this sense the word negligence indicates the standard or quality of the conduct.
3. Thirdly, the word refers to a branch of tort law which imposes a certain standard of care on
people in certain circumstances: this means that they are under an obligation not to conduct
themselves below the standard, and if they do, they are liable in law to compensate the person
who has suffered as a consequence of their careless act.
As what been stated in the case Donoghue v Stevenson [1932], 'Not every careless act or fault on
the part of a professional gives rise to liability in negligence, even where damage is sustained by
another as a result.'
Negligence also can be defined as the failure to use reasonable care. It also could be the doing of
something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which
a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances1.
Negligence is a 'legal cause' of damage if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence
produces or contributes substantially to producing such damage, so it can reasonably be said that
if not for the negligence, the loss, injury or damage would not have occurred. Negligence is also
might be a legal cause of damage even though it operates in combination with the act of another,

a natural cause, or some other cause if the other cause occurs at the same time as the negligence
and if the negligence contributes substantially to producing such damage.2
Furthermore, generally a party who has caused an injury or loss to another in consequence of his
negligence is responsible for all the consequences. An example of this may be found in the case
of a person who drives a car during a dark night on the wrong side of the road and injures
another.3
_______________________________________________________________________
1 http://www.lectlaw.com
Aaron Larson (2003) stated that in general terms, negligence is "the failure to use ordinary care"
through either an act or omission. That is, negligence occurs when:

Somebody does not exercise the amount of care that a reasonably careful person would
use under the circumstances; or

Somebody does something that a reasonably careful person would not do under the
circumstances.4

Comprehensive
Writing Services
Plagiarism-free
Always on Time
Marked to Standard

Negligence is often defined as consisting of a breach of duty. That is wrong. The duty in such a
case can be defined only as a duty to use care, i.e., not to act negligently; and to define the duty
so, and then to define negligence as consisting of a breach of the duty, is to define in a circle. The
misconception has arisen from a failure to distinguish between a negligent wrong, which, like all
wrongs, involves a breach of duty, and the negligence itself, which is one element in the wrong.5
4 http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/negligence.html
5 29 Harv. L. Rev. 40 (1915-1916) Negligence; Terry, Henry T.

2.3 Element of Liability

As a project manager, he or she responsible in managing project successfully and have liability
towards the project. Liability of project manager such as planning, leading, controlling,
organizing, co-coordinating available resources (i.e. people or material) and others in order to
make the project completed efficiently.
Project manager can not be easily being judge in doing negligent in the construction project.
There are some requirement that had been stated in some books on element of liability where in
order one party to be judge as breach of contract or negligent in the project, plaintiff must show
or prove that the defendant (project manager) done something wrong or make mistake in
conducting their duties.
Hussin A.A. (2006) stated that there are four elements of negligence. The plaintiff in an action
for negligence must show:
1. That the defendant owed him a duty of care
2. Considering the first of these elements, it is necessary to decide whether in the particular
circumstances one person (the defendant) owed a duty of care to the other (plaintiff).
3. That there was a breach of that duty
4. That recoverable damage was thereby caused.
Sweet J. (2000) had stated the elements of negligence by saying that to justify a conclusion that
the defendant was negligent, the plaintiff must establish the following:
1. The defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff to conform o a certain standard of conduct in order
to protect the plaintiff against unreasonable risk of harm.
2. The defendant did not conform to the standard required

3. A reasonably close causal connection existed between the conduct of the defendant and the
injury to the plaintiff.
4. The defendant invaded a legally protected interest of the plaintiff.
Finola O'Farrell Q.C. stated that in order to establish a claim in negligence, it is necessary for a
claimant to satisfy the following requirements:
1. The existence in law of a duty of care
2. Behaviour that falls below the standard of care imposed by law
3. A causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the damage
4. Damage falling within the scope of the duty
Aaron Larson (2003) listed four elements of a negligence action. A typical formula for evaluating
negligence requires that a plaintiff prove the following four factors by a "preponderance of the
evidence":
1. The defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff (or a duty to the general public, including the
plaintiff);
2. The defendant violated that duty;
3. As a result of the defendant's violation of that duty, the plaintiff suffered injury; and
4. The injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's action or inaction.

2.4 Types of negligence

Hussin A. A. (2006) stated Negligence of professional can be divided into two which are
negligence in giving statement (misstatement) or Negligence caused erroneous statement and
Negligence in the performance of duties (in addition to advice).
As referred to the statement above, there are two types of negligence. Negligence caused
erroneous statement can be determined as negligence made by project manager regarding their
wrong statement given to the any other parties in construction project.
Negligence in the performance of duties (in addition to advice) including check the site, design,
prepare budgets, prepare bills of quantity, selecting contractors, using the terms of the contract,
comply with the law and practice, administer contracts, oversee the work, provide work
instructions, and review work to make recommendations (work and progress payments). Project
manager can be said negligent in the performance of duties because they not they are not comply
their duties and carrying out the task properly such as not selecting the best contractors, not
administer the contracts efficiently and others.

This Essay is
a Student's Work
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our
professional essay writers.

There are several examples of negligence that can be categorized under Negligence caused
erroneous statement and Negligence in the performance of duties.

2.4.1 Negligence in giving advice

There is one case where project managers may be found negligent in performing their task such
as failed to advise their clients about inappropriate construction materials. In that case, project
manager is not really failed to advice their client because they do advice their client verbally but
not record it in writing. However, project manager has obliged his obligation or duties to give
advice and warn his client but it is also client's obligation to take into consideration advice given
by project manager. There is the case:
Pride Valley Foods v Hall and Partners
In case Pride Valley Foods v Hall and Partners which had been occurred in June 2001 is about
Pride Valley who intended to expand their small company specializing in baking pitta and nan
breads. Pride Valley decided to build a factory for expanding their business in County Durham
which is located in the North East of England. Pride Valley had been advised by their financial
backers to approach Hall & Partners as Pride Valley had no experience in design and build
contract and also in construction. Hall & Partners had been engaged by Pride Valley as their

project managers for the construction of a factory in Country Durham. Hall & Partners is a wellknown local firm of quantity surveyors and estate agents.
The issue is Pride Valley wanted keep costs down and Hall & Partners proposed to Pride Valley
to use expanded polystyrene panels as partitioning. Hall & Partners had informed to Pride Valley
the risk of using expanded polystyrene verbally and not in writing.
As a result, expanded polystyrene panels were used as partitioning was destroying the factory. As
stated by Molloy J.B. (YEAR) 'expert evidence agreed that the fire had developed at the bottom
of a flue serving the pitta bread line due to a build up of cooking deposits in the flue, and spread
to the expanded polystyrene wall panels which rapidly spread the fire through the entire building
with such force that it was too dangerous for fire-fighters to even enter the building in order to
put the fire out.'
Pride Valley decided to sue Hall & Partners for the consequences. Hall & Partners had been
blamed by Pride Valley because of failing to discharge project manager's duty of care and also to
warn them.
Hall & Partners maintained that they had given advice verbally with Pride Valley. But, the court
held that Hall & Partners had failed to give appropriate advice to Pride Valley as project
managers. Although Hall & Partners had given advice verbally, the judge did not consider it
because they failed to record it in writing.
However, the judge rejected Pride Valley's claim because the court further held that Pride Valley
would not have taken Hall & Partner's advice if it had been given whereas merely focused on the
cheapest cost of the building by using expanded polystyrene that given risk.
Patten B.(2003) stated project manager's role in concerned with supervision and co-ordination
and however there are also a project manager that failed to control particular aspects of the costs,
failed to ensure that other construction professionals had access to correct information or failed
to prevent another construction professional from making an important error.
Furthermore, Patten B. (2003) shows that there is contributory negligence of project manager to
the project. One case had been stated where project manager failed to warn his client regarding
the special panels. Special panels which client intends to use were not suitable because of highly
combustible and the chance of fire spreading throughout the building is high. Hence, court
decided to reduce the damages that need to be recovered by the claimant and also the loss caused
by the fire will be covered 50 percent by the project manager. It is because, project manager is
the person who did not take reasonable actions in preventing the loss happen because of fire and
project manager plays an important in coordinating and supervising the project. Blame on project
manager regarding this case would give bad impression to professional performance in
construction industry by parties involved in the project. Supposedly, as project manager, they
should avoid this negligence by discussing client's requirement first and take reasonable steps in
preventing bad things happen in site. Project manager acts to coordinating the works and
supervise the progress of work. Project manager owed duty of care to review the programme and
ensure that the project on programme by using reasonable endeavors.

There are two cases had been discussed by Patten B. (2003) which is Chesham Properties Ltd v.
Bucknall Austin Project Management Services Ltd and Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v.
Hammond and others.

2.4.2 Negligence in performing his duty of care

Project manager holding big responsibilities in making project successfully completed. However,
as a human being there are some of responsibilities that project manager does not realize on it.
There is a case regarding this issue:
(a) Pozzolanic Lytag Ltd v Bryan Hobson Associates (1998)
This case involved in construction of a dome. Bryan Hobson Associates (BHA) is an engineer
that being engaged as project manager by Pozzolanic Lytag. BHAs were responsible to the
design and construction of storage facilities for pulverised fuel ash. That is project manager
responsible to successfully complete the project. As the construction completed, the works
designed by the Contractor collapsed and there is no-one had taken out the required insurance.
Insurance is very important in order to protect the product of construction at the end of the
project and also important during the construction stage. However, insurance should be taken out
in order to protect construction product even after the construction completed for certain period.
In this case, BHA had been blamed by Pozzolanic Lytag because of failure in ensuring the
insurance was in place and insurance also must be updated for certain period. However, BHA
said that they did not know that it was their job to check on the insurance and they did not know
anything about insurance. As project manager, they should take note their obligation or duty of
care towards client's interest although they were not expert in several aspects. However, that is
the challenges that project manager are going faced on. Hence, the court found out that project
managers did not relieve their responsibility although they lacked the expertise regarding
insurances. As what been judged by court, project manager should be able to find out the way
they carry themselves in handling this kind of problems. Although that kind of thing is not
project manager's expertise but it is still under project manager's responsibility to look into those
aspects.
(b) Chesham Properties Ltd v Bucknall Austin Project Management Services (1996)
In this case, Bucknall Austin had been appointed as project manager by property developer
which is Chesham Properties. Chesham Properties involved in a scheme to develop a site known
as Royal Court House in Cadogan Place, London.
This issue of case was the contractor was given an extension of time where it supposedly not be
granted to contractor. Contractor had been awarded extensions of time just because to cover up
the failings by the professional team. The project also had overrun in cost and time.
Chesham Properties found out that Bucknall Austin was breached the contract and also negligent
in performing their duties. Furthermore, Chesham also argued that there should be an implied
terms to Bucknall Austin as a project manager where the deficiency of works might affect or
contribute to defects in the work, increase costs or delay completion. Hence, as a project

manager's duty was to warn Chesham regarding the deficiencies in the performance of parties
involved. Besides, as a project manager he had an obligation to inform Chesham Properties.
As a result, the developer sued the whole professional team. The court also found out that project
manager was under a duty of care to report to the developer on deficiencies in the performance
of the rest of the professional team and project manager was negligent in failing to do so.

The judge was of the view that:

"The Project Manager was plainly under a duty, on the true construction of the contract in such
terms and made in such context, to report to the plaintiff on deficiencies in performance on the
part of its co-defendants."
In this case, project manager owed a duty of care to inform employer regarding the deficiencies
in the work of the other professionals.

2.4.3 Negligence in supervision or inspection

According to R.M. Jackson and J.L. Powell (1992), the architect or engineer in general necessary
inspects the construction building properly either before or during construction of a structure. As
a project manager that having background either architect or engineer or quantity surveyor must
be able to do inspection or supervision efficiently.
In book written by Hussin A.A.(2006), there are statement by R.J. Kemelfield where architects,
engineers or contractors may be held liable for losses incurred by the client if they failed to
inspect building sites with the right methods. These include inspection when work is being
undertaken especially during the excavation work was completed.
There is one case regarding engineer's negligence in their duties. This case is between
Moneypenny vs. Hartland where in that case, an engineer had been found negligent for failing to
examine the form of land that will accommodate the basic construction of a bridge which can be
called as foundation of the bridge. Consequences of this failure, he has made assessment of the
costs that are too low for construction.
This case is about engineers fault because he or she does not examine the form of land
effectively. As what we can interpret from this case was engineer makes a mistake because in
examining the form of land is actually can be classified under engineer's liability in construction
project. Hence, engineer can be said as negligence in the performance of duties and not comply
duty of care and their liability as a professional.
However, in case Columbus Co. vs. Clowes is about an architect has been found negligent for
failing to assess and measure a site. He just depends on what was told to him by third parties.
Consequently he has been drawing plans and specifications based on dimensions smaller than the
actual dimensions of the site.

This is another case that involve architect as professional in construction project. In this case,
architect failed in carrying out their task which is fails in assessing and measuring a site.
Basically, as referred to this case, architect was found guilty and negligent because they do not
do their job effectively and only referring to the third party to get information to draw the plains
and specification. It shows that, architect that involved in that project do make any effort to get
information and not carrying out their task earnestly.
As what been discussed above, it shows that engineer, architect and any other professional were
found guilty in carrying their task. As a professional, they are the person who can take
responsibility in being project manager. As they failed to perform their duties, they might face
the problem once they being a project manager. However, it can be done by studying project
management before they come into project manager world. It can reduce the probability to give
high risk in negligence during the construction project or after the project completed.
There are other cases that relates to inadequate supervision which are:

Jameson v. Simon

Leicester Guardians v. Trollope

Clay v. A.J. Crump & Sons Ltd.

(a) Jameson v. Simon

Regarding on this case, architect was held negligent in failing to inspect work efficiently. In
order to certify that the work had been executed according to the contract, supervision by
architect required. However, in this case architect failed to inspect the bottoming of the cement
floor of a house either before or at the time the floor was laid. The bottoming was subsequently
found to consist of waste material and to be the cause of dry rot. There was an evidence to show
that architect had done his supervision by visiting site in average once a week. Architect also had
'given as much supervision and inspection as it was customary to give according to the practice
of architects. But that practice was insufficient to absolve the architect for failure to inspect so
important a part of the work.
(b) Leicester Guardians v. Trollope
Regarding on this case, by referring to Jackson and Powell (1992) stated that architect was held
negligent in failing to supervise the laying of concrete. He had contended that it was for the clerk
of works to supervise it. Channel J. rejected the contention, considering that the laying of the
concrete was a very important matter since a large area had to be covered. He continued "if the
architect had taken steps to see that the first block was all right, and had then told the clerk of
works that the work in the others was to be carried out in the same way. I would have been
inclined to hold that the architect had done his duty, but in fact he did nothing to see that the
design was complied with. In my view this was not a matter of detail which could be left with the
clerk of works."

(c) Clay v. A.J. Crump & Sons Ltd

This case is about architect was requested by the employer to consider whether it was safe to
leave standing a wall which subsequently collapsed.
Architect's duty to the employer may require him to consider and advice upon the need for
precautions. (Jackson & Powell,1992).
Architect as a project manager also has duty to warn any probabilities for problem to come out in
order to protect employer's interest and successfully completed.

2.4.4 Negligence in selecting contractors

Jackson and Powell (1992) stated one point of negligence which is failure to take reasonable
steps in selecting contractors.
"The exercise of reasonable care and skill may require an architect to make reasonable enquiries
as to the solvency and capabilities of contractors including nominated sub-contractors in
circumstances where he is responsible for their recommendation. An architect was held negligent
in failing to put the work of converting a house out to competitive tender in Hutchinson v. Harris.
Similarly he should take care when examining the amounts of quotations, not to accept rates
which are unreasonable in the circumstances."
Valerie Pratt vs. George J. Hill Associated.
There is one case about the negligence in giving recommendation or can be said as wrong
statement given by professional. That case is Valerie Pratt vs. George J. Hill Associated.
This case involves the architect who advised his client that one contractor company is "very
reliable" in performing construction work and based on advice (recommendations) given by
architect, the contractor has been appointed by his client. However, then the contractor can not be
trusted and work performance by that contractor is very bad. The court found that the architect
had violated his duties (duties) to advice, that he was doing wrong statement to his client.
In this case, the architect liable in giving advises to the client to choose the committed contractor
to complete the job properly. However, architect that act as project manager need to advises the
client and recommend the client the best contractor to complete the job but in this case, architect
had been judge as doing wrong statement by giving bad recommendation to the client. Architect
should investigate the background of the contractor in order to carrying out the task given and
not simply choose the contractor by not knowing their experience in construction industry. As a
result, project manager need to blame on this matter because they owed the duty of care to the
client and not performing their duty efficiently.
There is another case where architect or engineer owes a duty of care and have liability for
materials in project. As what James M. F. (2002) stated in his book, if the materials selected by

the employer without reference to the architect or engineer then the only duty imposed upon the
architect or engineer is a duty to warn of any defects in the materials known to him.

2.4.5 Negligence in advising on the suitable contract

As a project manager, it is an obligation of project manager in considering the terms of contract
and chooses the best contract for client.
'The exercise of reasonable care and skill may require the architect to advise the employer to
reject a particular form of contract or a particular term if disadvantageous to the employer's
interests, or to refuse to nominate a particular sub-contractor unless he is prepared to guarantee
or warrant to the employer the quality or fitness of certain work and materials.' (Jackson and
Powell, 1992)

2.4.6 Negligence in administering building contract

As what been stated by Jackson and Powell (1992), there is a case which is Wilks v. Thingoe
(Suffolk) R.D.C. where an architect was held negligent. It is because architect was negligence in
having embarked on a course of extravagant expenditure without his employer's authority. The
position of the architect under the JCT Standard Form of Building contract (1963 edition, July
1971 revision) was recently considered, mainly from the standpoint of its contractual
consequences as between employer and contractor, in London Borough of Merton v. Stanley
Hugh Leach Ltd. Vinelott J. stated:
"... under the standard conditions the architect acts as the servant or agent of the building owner
in supplying the contractor with the necessary drawings, instructions, levels and the like and in
supervising the progress of the work and in ensuring that it is properly carried out. He will of
course normally though not invariably have been responsible for the design of the work... To the
extent that the architect performs these duties the building owner contracts with the contractor
that the architect will perform them with reasonable diligence and with reasonable skill and care.
The contract also, confers on the architect discretionary powers which he must exercise with due
regard to the interests of the contractor and the building owner. The building owner does not
undertake that the architect will exercise his discretionary powers reasonably; he undertakes that
although the architect may be engaged or employed by him will leave him free to exercise his
discretions fairly and without improper interference by him.

2.2 The Causes of Project Manager's Negligence

Project manager's negligence in construction must leave impacts once it happened against project
whether towards the project or parties involved such as workers. However, the causes of project
manager's negligence will be find out in order to prevent any other project manager from
repeating same mistakes in future.
As a project manager, they are the best person chosen by client to handle the project successfully.
They have capability and expertise in conducting a project is the reasons why client had high
expectation towards project manager. However, project manager is different between each other.

They studied project management but having different background, experience, level of
capability, attitude and etc that bringing different way or style in handling the project. Tunner and
Muller (2006) have also shown that a project managers' success at managing his or her project is
dependent on their competence, particularly their leadership style comprising emotional
intelligence, management focus and intellect.
As what Badawy M. K. (1988) stated where project manager requires a high degree of flexibility
and adaptability, aggressiveness, persuasiveness, superb communication skills, an ability to deal
with conflict and to function well within a highly ambiguous environment and ill-defined
organizational relationships. This is not easy task because project manager's task is a complex
one. Furthermore, he also stated that the primary problems of project management are not
technical because they are human. It follows that the ratio of project success as well as efficiency
and effectiveness of resources utilization will be significantly enhanced if management can do a
better job in recruiting, selecting, training, and developing managerial skills of project managers.
The causes of project failure can be numerous. However, the core reason for project failure
usually is not limited resources but incompetent project managers. Projects fail because
managers fail.
Project Manager's negligence comes from the project managers itself. Project manager have
responsibilities in carrying out the task and ensure all the works being completed efficiently. In
order to make the projects flow smoothly, project managers must have ability in solving the
problems during the construction stage and well-trained in project management. Poor project
manager will overemphasis of technical skills as prerequisite for selection to project management
positions as what been stated by Badawy M. K. (1988).
In managing the projects, it is not only on technical skills as what statement given. It is about soft
skills that project manager had in order to deal with people in construction project. If project
manager failed to deal with parties involved in the construction project, the probabilities of
project manager's negligence is higher. As project manager, they need high interpersonal skills
and superb communication skills in being a good project manager. These skills are important to
avoid project manager's negligence in construction project such as miscommunication in giving
instruction and others. Lack of communication also is one of the causes of project manager's
negligence as communication is very important in conducting, directing, organizing and etc to
make the instruction or information were clearly given and understood.

1. Inappropriate advice
There is another cause of project manager's negligence in construction which is failed to advice
his client in appropriate way. There is the case where project manager is wrongdoer because has
advise their client without record it in writing. This case clearly shown the cause of project
manager's negligence and it is learning process for that project manager and other project
manager also to take into consideration and to be more caution in giving advice.
Pride Valley Foods v Hall and Partners

As referred to this case, Hall & Partners were required to advice their client on the suitable
material but they had failed to give appropriate advice to Pride Valley. Hall & Partners were not
exactly failed to advise their client because they do advice their client verbally regarding the risk
of using expanded polystyrene. Although Hall & Partners had given advice verbally, the judge
did not consider it because they failed to record it in writing. That is the first cause of the
negligence happened. Although Hall & Partners had given the advice, they should convince
Pride Valley to hear their advice. As a result, they had been blamed by Pride Valley because not
giving them an advice in appropriate way by record it in writing. However, it is one of the
reasons why Hall & Partners had been caught as negligence because they failed to record it in
writing (as a proof) although they obliged their responsibility in giving advice to client.
It shows that project manager know their responsibility in giving advice to client. Important to
project manager to explore the contract and understand the content of contract in order to remind
project manager their obligations towards client. Project manager also should aware that they had
duty of care towards the project as a leader and on behalf of client. Hence, it is project manager's
responsibilities to protect client's interest and etc.
There is another reason why the factory was destroyed which it is Pride Valley's responsible to
take into consideration as what had been advised by Hall & Partners. The point it is Pride Valley
would not have taken Hall & Partner's advice if it had been given. It can be said that the warning
was given to Pride Valley but were ignored by them just only focus in lowering the cost. The
cause of that factory destroyed also came from the client itself.

2. Lack of duty of care

As professional, project manager should know they had duty of care towards client, project and
parties involved. It can be said that professional negligence is because of the lack of duty of care.
Duty of care given by them was not enough to avoid the problems occurred.
Pozzolanic Lytag Ltd v Bryan Hobson Associates (1998)
In this case, project manager is responsible to successfully complete the project. As the
construction completed, the works designed by the Contractor collapsed and there is no-one had
taken out the required insurance. The cause of this negligence happened because project manager
should take note their obligation or duty of care towards client's interest although they were not
expert in several aspects.
Project manager supposedly studied the contract in order to know their responsibilities being
stated in the contract. Furthermore, if project manager explore what being stated in the contract,
all these thing could be avoid in future.
Insurance is very important in order to protect the product of construction at the end of the
project and also important during the construction stage. However, insurance should be taken out
in order to protect construction product even after the construction completed for certain period.
However, BHA should not say that they did not know that they need to check on the insurance
and they should not say that they did not know anything about insurance. It is because, as project

manager, they need to find out the way to solve this problem by asking expert person in that
particular matter to help them in terms of insurance. Hence it is project manager's responsibility
regarding this matter although they lacked the expertise regarding insurances. It can be said that
project manager lack duty of care that could bring problems in this contract.
Besides that, project manager should understand the contract better in order to avoid this sort of
problem. It can be said that project manager were not alert and lack duty of care in performing
their obligations or task.
Chesham Properties Ltd v Bucknall Austin Project Management Services (1996)
Chesham Properties found out that Bucknall Austin was breached the contract and also negligent
in performing their duties. Furthermore, Chesham also argued that there should be an implied
terms to Bucknall Austin as a project manager where the deficiency of works might affect or
contribute to defects in the work, increase costs or delay completion. Hence, as a project
manager's duty was to warn Chesham regarding the deficiencies in the performance of parties
involved. Besides, as a project manager he had an obligation to inform Chesham Properties.
The court also found out that project manager was under a duty of care to report to the developer
on deficiencies in the performance of the rest of the professional team and project manager was
negligent in failing to do so.

3. Lack of supervision or inspection

Lack of supervision or inspection is one of the causes of negligence regarding these two cases
which are Jameson v. Simon and Leicester Guardians v. Trollope. Supervision is one step to
prevent negligence by project manager. As much supervision being conducted, the updated
information on the progress of works will be well-informed.
Jameson v. Simon
Regarding on this case, architect was held negligent in failing to inspect work efficiently. In
order to certify that the work had been executed according to the contract, supervision by
architect required. However, in this case architect failed to inspect the bottoming of the cement
floor of a house either before or at the time the floor was laid. The bottoming was subsequently
found to consist of waste material and to be the cause of dry rot. There was an evidence to show
that architect had done his supervision by visiting site in average once a week. Architect also had
'given as much supervision and inspection as it was customary to give according to the practice
of architects. But that practice was insufficient to absolve the architect for failure to inspect so
important a part of the work.
Leicester Guardians v. Trollope
Regarding on this case, by referring to Jackson and Powell (1992) stated that architect was held
negligent in failing to supervise the laying of concrete. He had contended that it was for the clerk
of works to supervise it. Channel J. rejected the contention, considering that the laying of the

concrete was a very important matter since a large area had to be covered. He continued "if the
architect had taken steps to see that the first block was all right, and had then told the clerk of
works that the work in the others was to be carried out in the same way. I would have been
inclined to hold that the architect had done his duty, but in fact he did nothing to see that the
design was complied with. In my view this was not a matter of detail which could be left with the
clerk of works."

4. Lack of skills and training

Lack of training for project manager involved in construction project also one of causes of
project manager's negligence. A well-trained project manager is able to avoid from make
mistakes in their profession but it might be weird to say that as a human being they do not do any
mistakes in their life. A well-trained project manager might not do mistakes because they able to
control the process and trying to prevent in giving statement or other negligence that might come
in construction project by applying project management knowledge efficiently.
'While technical and administrative skills are certainly important for project success, lack of
appropriate interpersonal skills has been the prime cause of failure among project managers.
Developing effective interpersonal skills includes: communication, initiative, leadership, relating
to others, negotiation, and conflict management capabilities.' Badawy M. K. (1988).

5. Lack of experience
Pinto J. K. and Mantel S.J. (1990) stated there are three aspects to assess the success or failure of
a project which is firstly, it is depends on the implementation process itself, secondly, the
perceived value of the project and the third is client satisfaction with the delivered project. The
first aspect is concerned with the internal efficiency of the project implementation process. This
is an important aspect that related to the project manager's role.
Experience is very important in managing construction project. It is because experience could
reduce the probabilities for negligence happened. However, some of other project might have
less experience, but they managed to handle the project successfully. They have ability and
potential to be on that position and be trusted by senior project manager to give such
responsibility to them. However, experience would help project manager to be more careful and
details for every single decision they are taking.

2.3 The Effects of Project Manager's Negligence in Construction Industry

Project manager is one of the important people who responsible for problems occurred in
construction project as a leader of the project. Negligence of Project Manager more or less would
leave impacts towards project; parties involved or might be towards public and etc. Negligence
of Project manager would contribute to big impact or small impacts depending on negligence
done project manager himself.
There are impacts of Project Manager's negligence in performing his obligation such as:

Loss and Damages

Claims

Injury

Abandon Project

Less Respect

Bad Perceptions

Bad Relationship

others

All impacts listed above are several impacts that occurred or might occur in construction project
depending on the negligence done by project manager. For example, injury might not happened
for several negligence of project manager and same goes to abandon the project, it depends on
types of negligence occurred.

1. Loss and Damages

James M. F. (2002) stated that as a consequence of breach of duty by them, there might be
damages that need to be measured. Loss and damages is one of the important impacts of project
manager's negligence. For example, once the project manager gives a wrong statement or
negligence in giving advice, it would effects the cost or budget of client that could contribute to
loss and damages. It would not benefit for both parties either project manager or client.
Damages can be classified into two which are special damages and general damages as what
been stated by Hingun. M. and Ahmad W.A (1998) where special damages represent the loss
which can be calculated such as property damage and etc whereas general damages represent the
loss which could not be calculated in the manner that special damages can, such as representing
pain and suffering and etc.
As in the case of other professionals the usual remedy for breach of duty by an architect,
engineer, or quantity surveyor is an award of damages. In certain circumstances he may be
denied his fees because the breach of duty may be so serious as to be tantamount to nonperformance. (Jackson & Powell, 1992)

2. Injury
Injury caused by project manager's negligence is slightly happen in construction project.
However, there are several cases that involved injury as one of the impacts. Injury would
contribute to bad perceptions toward parties involved in construction project. Once it occurred,

people might know who are the project manager, architect, quantity surveyor, engineer and
contractor involved in that project.

3. Claims
Loss or personal injury would result in a claim against the professional negligence as they breach
of duty. Claim can be done towards project manager and other professional parties that involved
in construction process. Not all negligence would leave an impact such as claim. It can be but
some other case, loss was not allowed to claim against professional negligence such in the case
of Pride Valley Foods v Hall and Partners.
Patten B. (2003) shows that there is one case where court decided to reduce the damages that
need to be recovered by the claimant and also the loss caused by the fire will be covered 50
percent by the project manager. Project manager need pay 50 percent of the loss suffered by the
claimant because project manager failed in giving advice that allowed clients suffered the losses
and he or she also owed the duty of care in that project.
As referred to court decision regarding the case above, project managers are responsible of what
had been done by them because breach the duty of care in giving advice to client and responsible
for their failure in carrying out the task in construction project. As a result, project manager need
to cover half of the losses or damages suffered by the claimant or client because of their
negligence in managing the project.

Monetary Compensation
Patten B. (2003) defined damages as monetary compensation that seeks by claimant for his
losses. As referred to this example:
'a client who has retained an architect to build a house may complain that the architect acted in
breach of duty in advising him that no piling works would be required when these were in fact
discovered to be necessary shortly before construction commenced. The client may seek to
recover the cost of the piling works from the architect. However, in so doing he omits to apply
the fundamental principle. If the breach of duty had not occurred the architect would have
advised him that piling works were necessary. He would still have had to pay for them. His true
loss is the difference between the positions he now in, very possibly has to pay for the piling
works by way of a variation to the building contract, with the position he would have been in,
that is, able to include the piling works in the original tender.' Patten B. (2003)
There are three cases that going to be discussed on the impacts of project manager's negligence
which are (1) Pride Valley Foods v Hall and Partners, (2) Pozzolanic Lytag Ltd v Bryan Hobson
Associates and (3) Chesham Properties Ltd v Bucknall Austin Project Management Services.
a) Pride Valley Foods v Hall and Partners
As referred to this case, the first effect is factory was destroyed. It can be said as damage to
client. Expanded polystyrene panels were used as partitioning was destroying the factory. The

issue is Pride Valley wanted keep costs down and Hall & Partners proposed to Pride Valley to use
expanded polystyrene panels as partitioning. Hall & Partners had informed to Pride Valley and
give advices regarding the risk of using expanded polystyrene verbally and not in writing. As a
result, the factory was destroyed. Besides that, it is also gives a big loss to the Pride Valley as
they tried to low the cost of construction but at the end of the day the factory was destroyed and
gives the big loss to them.
Pride Valley claimed to Hall Partners regarding the loss occurred when the factory destroyed.
However, the judge rejected Pride Valley's claim because the court further held that Pride Valley
would not have taken Hall & Partner's advice if it had been given whereas merely focused on the
cheapest cost of the building by using expanded polystyrene that given risk. Both parties have
duties where as project manager advices supposedly given to client in appropriate way and as a
client, they supposedly take into consideration on advices given to them and not simply ignore
without consider the advice first.
b) Pozzolanic Lytag Ltd v Bryan Hobson Associates (1998)
This case involving an insurance where should be taken into consideration in order to protect
construction product even after the construction completed for certain period. In this case, BHA
had been blamed by Pozzolanic Lytag because of failure in ensuring the insurance was in place
and insurance also must be updated for certain period. However, BHA said that they did not
know that it was their job to check on the insurance and they did not know anything about
insurance. As project manager, they should take note their obligation or duty of care towards
client's interest although they were not expert in several aspects. However, that is the challenges
that project manager are going faced on. Hence, the court found out that project managers did not
relieve their responsibility although they lacked the expertise regarding insurances. This will
reduce profit to Pozzolanic Lytag and give damages because as the construction completed, the
works designed by the Contractor collapsed and there is no-one had taken out the required
insurance. Besides that, it is also giving losses to client as they who spend their money to
complete the project but at the end of the day, it would not benefit them enough in giving profit.
c) Chesham Properties Ltd v Bucknall Austin Project Management Services
As referred to this case, the developer sued the whole professional team. Bucknall Austin had
been argued by Chesham Properties as they breach of contract. Chesham Properties argued that
Bucknall Austin as project manager have duty to report any deficiencies in the performance of
parties involved. Project manager's obligation is to inform client regarding deficiencies that
could contribute to increasing costs, delay or defects in work.
Contractor was awarded an extension of time to cover up the failings by the professional team.
As a result, project manager was found negligent in failing to inform the client and the whole
professional team being sued by developer.

4. Abandon Project

The effects of project manager's negligence are depending on the types of negligence made by
them. Abandon project is not a must thing happen in construction industry if project manager
being negligent. Abandon project occur when the negligence happen because of injury or death
or anything that require the project to stop the work. It might take time to do investigation
against the accident that involved with injury and death. The project might be stop the progress
and abandon the project. The probability of the project abandon is lower because any accident
happen on site is under contractor's responsibility. However, project manager also responsible
against contractor's failure and might involved in contributory negligence.

5. Less Respect
Project manager is the one who lead the team members and being chosen by client. Parties
involved in construction project obey and respect project manager as a leader of team. However,
respect might be less as negligence happen by project manager in construction project. Pinto,
J.K. (1998) stated that successful project management is essentially about dealing effectively
with people. The ability of the project manager has been likened to that of bandleaders who pull
together their players, each a specialist with individual score and internal rhythm, so that they all
respond to the same beat. Meaning to say that project manager must be able to conduct and
organize people to achieve goals. Team members have high expectation and respect their team
leader as project manager is the best person chosen by client to manage and handle the project
successfully. Negligence of project manager would reduce the respect of team members against
project manager as what project manager has done in the project.

6. Bad Perceptions
As project manager negligence in performing his tasks, bad perceptions against client, contractor,
architect, engineer and parties involved in the project. Especially for those negligence which
involving in injury or death. Bad perceptions exist because some people might say that as a
professional they must be perfect and know how to handle situations when the problems came
out. However, perceptions is very subjective because different people having different kind of
perception against someone. Bad perceptions towards project manager would affect and limit
project manager's potential to expose themselves in other project and in future.

7. Bad Relationships
Communication skill is important in coordinating parties involved in the project. Andrew A.L.T.
(2004) pointed out that project leader plays a role of inspire the entire project consortium team to
greater heights. It means that in inspiring the project team, project leader is important to have
skills in dealing with people because probabilities to motivate and inspire people would be high
with those skills. Project manager should be able to give the best for project and the project team
members. However, negligence made by project manager could affect their relationships in
construction project.
Pinto, J.K. (1998) regarded that successful project management is essentially about dealing
effectively with people. The ability of the project manager has been likened to that of
bandleaders who pull together their players, each a specialist with individual score and internal

rhythm, so that they all respond to the same beat. Meaning to say that project manager must be
able to conduct and organize people to achieve goals.